George Hunt's presentation, given above, shows is that many of the Global initiatives taken in the name of “sustainability” constitute a new rendition of Communism, a new false liberation ideology. This presentation clearly shows the World power of an “Anglo-American” (read – Rothschild dominated) financial coterie. Here, people like you and I are called “the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the Earth”. And a banking system set up by and for the Rothschilds is shown to be the centerpiece of the new mode of organization that “sustainability” measures will create. The attendees (like Maurice Strong) have no qualms about acknowledging the dominance of that family in World Affairs. Strong states that there is “no better person” to spearhead this project than Edmond de Rothschild, and that he “epitomizes in his own life that positive synthesis between environment and conservation on the one hand and economics on the other”. In other words, Rothschild is the leader of both international finance and this pseudo-environmentalist movement resting on the two pillars - the claim of anthropogenic global warming (on that, see the following, along with much else in this essay: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/14051/Climate-Depot-Special-Report-AZ-Climate-Reality-Check–SubPrime-Science-Exposeacute-The-claims-of-the-promoters-of-manmade-climate-fears-are-failing–Presented-to-UN-Summit-) and the claim of disastrous overpopulation (on that, see the following, along with much else in this essay: http://overpopulationisamyth.com/) (this movement is of course led by people creating environmental havoc (like proliferation of GMO foods and depleted Uranium), and significant environmental problems are ignored because of this perversion of ecology).
Of course, the Rothschilds are making massive amounts of money from this. They are the leaders in the carbon trading market, according to a recent press release: http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/newsreleases/rothschild-australia-and-e3-international-to-take-the-lead-in-the-global-carbon-trading-market-154464275.html
But as this presentation shows, their intentions are not only to make massive amounts of money, but also to ensnare the populace within a new web of social control. We can see the outlines of this operating today. - in a document called "Trading Emissions: Full Global Potential" (London: The Social Market Foundation, January 2008: http://www.smf.co.uk/assets/files/publications/SMF_Trading_Emissions.pdf) - written by Simon Linnett, Executive Vice Chairman of N M Rothschild, London (see "about the author" section of that document).
In the document, he he defines "greenhouse emissions" as the new form of "social market" and states:
"That such a market has to be established on a world basis coordinated by an international institution with a constitution to match....
That, perhaps, it might be regarded as having wider benefits than merely `saving the planet' - perhaps it might be the basis of a new world order, one that is not based on trade and/or conflict resolution.
Perhaps one can see a way to achieve this goal through leadership, vision and some marginal and manageable renunciation of national sovereignty, how the world might just get there.
The repercussions of addressing climate change may extend well beyond that single but critical issue....
Implicit in all the above is that nations have to be prepared to subordinate, to a certain extent, some element of their sovereignty to this world initiative."
He notes that "The political costs of such loss of sovereignty are lengthy. Loss of competitiveness (massively overstated in the activities in which energy is used - especially since trade will be more difficult, if, at the margin,
transport is made more costly), loss of power and loss of direct control over economic levers are potentially the most significant and give the most cause for concern. But these actions are necessary if we are to answer the
accusation that "it doesn't matter what we do when China is expanding its energy usage at its current rate" - we have to bring China and India in and they are not going to enter a scheme where they do not have a "say". When countries are already foregoing the right of direct control over monetary policy through the creation of independent central banks, this [the above] could be a relatively small price to pay for such inclusion."
He furthermore states that "The EU member states have recognised their need to subordinate sovereignty to the EU; in time, if this is to work, the EU itself will need to yield sovereignty to a bigger world body on carbon trading."
He states "Above all, this plan requires "sponsors" - a country prepared to host it and a senior politician prepared to lead this new initiative.
If such a route map could be found, then perhaps we might be at the beginning of a new world constitution and a new world order."
He states that regulating this should be a "World Environment Authority" operating from a "world city with world skills and world facilities." He then notes, in a section entitled "A natural role for London", "London is a world financial centre (possibly "the" world financial centre)." and that "London would make a compelling case to house the World Environmental Agency."
It is interesting that this movement would be controlled by the Rothschilds, because its predecessor, Communism, was controlled by the Rothschilds. This fact was established by the anarcho-syndicalist Mikhail Bakunin, the chief rival of Karl Marx: http://www.connexions.org/RedMenace/Docs/RM4-BakuninonMarxRothschild.htm
Marxism duped well meaning people who wanted workers to be treated fairly, and who created a system far more horrific than the one they were condemning. In the same way, this pseudo-environmentalism has, if you look at the writings of the people and think tanks who push it, implications far more horrific than what its adherents would believe. To illustrate the connection, note that the Librarian of Congress, James Billington, noted in "Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith", that green was the "sacred" color of communism (while red was the "revolutionary" color): http://tinyurl.com/853by88
The leaders of this movement advocate tyrannical World Government and mass depopulation. This is illustrated by a chilling document written by the UN magnate Maurice Strong, an agent of Edmund de Rothschild, that was taken from the conference Hunt attended. It is the second document attached.
Excerpts are as follows:
"The time is pressing. The Club of Rome was founded in 1968, Limits to Growth was written in 1971, Global 2000 was written in 1979, but insufficient progress has been made in population reduction.
Given global instabilities, including those of the former Soviet bloc, the need for firm control of world technology, weaponry, and resources, is absolutely mandatory. The immediate reduction of world population, according to the mid-1970's recommendation of the Draper Fund, must be immediately affected.
"The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary. ...
Compulsory cooperation s not debatable with 166 nations, most of whose leaders are irresolute, conditioned by localist "cultures" and lacking the appropriate notions of the New World Order. Debate only means delay and forfeiture of our goals and purpose.
The UN action against Iraq proves conclusively that resolute action on our part can sway other leaders to go along with the necessary program. The Iraq action proves that the aura of power can be projected and sustained and that the wave of history is sweeping forward. ...
We are the living sponsors of the great Cecil Rhodes will of 1877 ... We stand with Lord Milner's credo. We too are "British Race Patriots" and our patriotism is "the speech, the tradition, the principles, the aspirations of the British Race". Do you fear to take this stand, at the very last moment when this purpose can be realized? do you not see that failure now, is to be pulled down by the billions of Lilliputians of lesser race who care little or nothing for the Anglo-Saxon system?
...The Security Council of the UN, led by the Anglo-American Major Nation Powers, will decree that, henceforth, all nations have quotas for REDUCTION on a yearly basis, which will be enforced by the Security Council by selective or total embargo of credit, food, medicine or military force, when required. ...
outmoded notions of sovereignty will be discarded and the Security Council has complete legal, military and economic jurisdiction in any region in the world, to be enforced by the Major Nations of the Security Council.
The Security Council of the U.N. Will explain that not all races are equal, nor should they be. Those races proven superior by superior achievements ought to rule the lesser races, caring for them on sufferance that they cooperate with the Security Council. ...
All could be lost if opposition by minor races is tolerated and the vacillations of those we work with, our closest comrades, is cause for our hesitations. Open declaration of intent followed by decisive force is the final solution."
World Government has long been an infatuation among certain plutocrats in the United States and Europe. One of the first motivators used by adherents of the World government ambition was using public fears of nuclear War, that we must have "one world or none". Perhaps the most vocal proponent of this idea was Bernard Baruch, one of Roosevelt's key "advisers", who after WWII promoted the idea of building up the UN into a World Government with atomic powers: http://mailstar.net/baruch-plan.html
Baruch, who stated to a Senate Committee after World War I: "I probably had more power than perhaps any other man did in the war; doubtless that is true.": http://tinyurl.com/848qjdm
...stated the following after WWII, in an address to the UN Atomic Energy Commission as recorded in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:
“Behind the black portent of the new atomic age lies a hope which, seized upon with faith, can work out salvation … Let us not deceive ourselves: we must elect world peace or world destruction. … We must provide the mechanism to assure that atomic energy is used for peaceful purposes and preclude its use in war. To that end, we must provide immediate, swift and sure punishment of those who violate the agreements that are reached by the nations. Penalization is essential if peace is to be more than a feverish interlude between wars. And, too, the United Nations can prescribe individual responsibility and punishment on the principles applied at Nuremberg by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, France and the United States – a formula certain to benefit the world’s future. In this crisis, we represent not only our governments, but, in a larger way, we represent the peoples of the world. . . The peoples of these democracies gathered here are not afraid of an internationalism that protects; they are unwilling to be fobbed off by mouthings about narrow sovereignty, which is today’s phrase for yesterday’s isolation. … Peace is never long preserved by weight of metal or by an armament race. Peace can be made tranquil and secure only by understanding and agreement fortified by sanctions. We must embrace international cooperation or international disintegration.”: http://tinyurl.com/7ejoc9f
Stalin was a bit of a Buonapartist, and foiled this, so the cold war was on. Stalin would later face some problems where he was located, and be murdered: http://mailstar.net/death-of-stalin.html
Baruch interestingly stated before a Senate Committee in 1948: “Although the shooting war is over, we are in the midst of a cold war which is getting warmer.” He was one of the first people I am aware of to use this term: http://tinyurl.com/75jvhmv
The disgusting thing here is that, as Maj. George Racey Jordan showed in his diaries, Roosevelt's other key adviser, Harry Hopkins, supplied the Soviets with atomic weapons during WWII: http://archive.org/details/FromMajorJordansDiaries And throughout the war, the West still supplied essential technology to the Soviet Union, as revealed in the research of Dr. Antony Sutton, popularized in his book “The Best Enemy Money Can Buy”: http://tinyurl.com/7guyj3w
During this time, World Government proponents advocated merging the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. under the auspices of the UN. William Jasper, who belongs to an organization I do not endorse (the John Birch Society), nevertheless came out with a book delving into this that is well documented, and independently verifiable: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/un_exposed/un_exposed.htm
Soon, however, proponents of this ambition realized that they could achieve their objectives with a less direct approach. that gradual Regionalization and submerging nations in complex webs of international relations would be preferable to just announcing a World Government controlled by the UN. Former U. S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Trilateralist and CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in an April, 1974 Foreign Affairs article entitled The Hard Road to World Order, provided insight into how the World State was to be built:
“In this unhappy state of affairs, few people retain much confidence in the more ambitious strategies for world order that had wide backing a generation ago-’world federalism,’ `charter `review,’ and `world peace through world law.’… If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there?… In short, the `house of world order’ would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great `booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”: http://ia700403.us.archive.org/28/items/TheHardRoadToWorldOrder/HardRoadtoWorldOrder.pdf
Even though these people were implementing their agenda via a slightly less direct route, the phenomenon of East-West convergence was still paramount. In 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev stated: “We are moving toward a New World, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.” (Cf. Conquest, Robert and Paul Hollander. "Political Violence: Belief, Behavior, and Legitimation" Palgrave Macmillan; First Edition (October 28, 2008). p. 118): http://tinyurl.com/7vmwqud
And indeed he was right. Communism did not “fall”, but dialectically synthesized into the Communist-Capitalist synthesis known as Globalism. This, is of course being implemented via regionalism. The EU would follow this pattern of Capitalist-Communist convergence (and other Continental Unions are to follow). The Soviet defector Vladimir Bukovsky, who was allowed to examine secret Soviet archives, proved this in his monograph "EUSSR: The Soviet Roots of European Integration", which shows that the modern EU was implemented as a result of a conspiracy between the Politburo and the elite of the Trilateral Commission - David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Yasuhiro Nakasone, and Valéry Giscard d’Estaing: http://www.scribd.com/doc/87502960/EUSSR-The-Soviet-roots-of-European-Integration
A document leaked by wikileaks noted similar regionalization taking place in North America, in contrast to the claims of deniers: http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2005/01/05OTTAWA268.html
For more, see the following: http://www.naunewz.org/
For the triumph of Globalism, a new ideology would be needed that would replace the limited success gained by threatening war. Thus, a new crisis creation think tank, the Club of Rome, was founded.
Many of the functions the Club of Rome would take on (crisis creation, crisis “management”) were elaborated upon in detail in a document entitled “The Report from Iron Mountain”, which presented itself as a project from a high level governmental “special study group” that met between 1963 and 1966. It hints that it was commissioned on behalf of the Hudson Institute, a spinoff of the Rand Corporation. The document discussed how war was historically an effective means of controlling populations, and, given that globalization was internationalizing Government, war might not continue to be a viable means of controlling populations, and so substitutes to war had to be found (of course, in a World Government, renegade groups would merely be violently assaulted for “violating peace”). According to the document, these substitutes had to expand the power of government, be economically wasteful, and be fueled by alleged “threats” that could only be averted by adherence to these controlling propositions. It discussed compulsory service for “anti-social” elements, blood games, and the creation of external threats to “unify society” like an alien invasion and, of course, the threat of overwhelming “environmental catastrophe” requiring Globalist solutions to fix (and of course the people who write this kind of literature are subsidized by the people causing actual environmental damage). It is well worth reading to understand the type of thinking that does indeed manifest in these groups: http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=PDFsml_AD2%2FReport_From_Iron_Mountain_On_The_Possibility_And_Desirability_Of_Peace-Leonard_Lewin-1967-135pgs-POL.sml.pdf&id=474
This report was dismissed as a hoax, written by Leonard Lewin. If one studies the actions of these people, however, one will realize that it irrelevant who wrote it, since those types of actions are indeed being implemented by power brokers today. And of course, if one looks into the document’s history, one finds that an influential member of the “intellectual elite”, John Kenneth Galbraith, claimed knowledge of the group that wrote it and publicly supported it’s authenticity: http://tinyurl.com/9qdffnx
I am not presenting it as evidence, I am only presenting it for the sake of giving insight into a mentality.
Concurrently, the Conference on Conditions of World Order was held in Bellagio, Italy, with sponsorship from the Congress for Cultural Freedom and the Ford Foundation. After this conference, members of the group stated their intentions and objectives in a report entitled “Conditions of World Order”. The text stated (p. 224):
“The establishment of world order depends not only on its intrinsic desirability and viability, but also on the support of men and groups who decide to dedicate themselves to the completion of such a goal. As increasing sectors of developed and underdeveloped societies begin to realize the urgent necessity of world order, the viability of its establishment, and the fact that it can be achieved by adopting measures which are reasonable in themselves, none of the governments will be able to escape public pressure for establishing world order”: http://tinyurl.com/7fna67o
The Club of Rome, was then founded in Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio in 1968, has been the main pusher of “overpopulation” scares and the purported “threat” of “anthropogenic global warming”, while ignoring environmental super-remedies like industrial hemp (http://tinyurl.com/7gmcsu5), and ignoring environmental catastrophes like the spread of Genetically Modified Organisms, which the Rockefellers are a key force behind. An overview of that organization, with a list of some members that might surprise some of us, can be found here: http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
The Club of Rome then established itself with the launch of it’s book “Limits to Growth in 1972″, which aroused the fear of immanent danger from “overpopulation”.
After this, they released a Report entitled “Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System” which was part of their “Strategy for Survival Project”. It put forth the goal of submerging nation states into 10 Global Regions for the administrative convenience of a World Government: http://tinyurl.com/b8d8rrl, http://tinyurl.com/amh4hcy, http://tinyurl.com/atllseo
Plans for the evolution of Globalism were put forth in the Club of Rome texts “Mankind at the Turning Point” and “RIO: Reshaping the International Order”. Relevant excerpts from these texts are available here: http://www.archive.org/details/SetOfMainArticlesFromKnowledgeDrivenRevolution
The text “Goals for Mankind” was released in 1977. An overview of it is provided here, it gives insight into the technocratic fashion in which the world is run: http://www.archive.org/details.php?identifier=GoalsforMankindareporttotheclubofromebyErvinLaszlo
“Global 2000″, a U.S. policy document along these lines, was written in 1979. It was very much like the text “Limits to Growth”, creating extreme fears about the “threat” of “overpopulation”. Pages 702-703 called for an “intensively managed world” and fertility reduction in order to offset these perceived threats: http://tinyurl.com/7o4jwrt
The predicates for these fears are false. One very good, well documented, common sense overview of how this is the case is provided by the following resource: http://overpopulationisamyth.com/
Many of these people have used these arguments as an excuse to increase Governmental power. One such example is Arnold Toynbee, director of studies for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, who, addressing these issues, said in that “In all developed countries a new way of life—a severely regimented way—will have to be imposed by a ruthless authoritarian government” (cited by Arthur Miller in an article in the Washington and Lee Law Review, Volume 41, Issue 4, p. 1262): http://tinyurl.com/6n726qr
Toynbee, prior to that, as recorded in the RIIA’s own journal, said, "In the world as it is to-day, this institution can hardly be a Universal Church. It is more likely to be something like a League of Nations. I will not prophesy. I will merely repeat that we are at present working, discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with out lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national state of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or a publicist can be - perhaps not quite burnt at the stake, but certainly ostracized and discredited. The dragon of local sovereignty can still use its teeth and claws when it is brought to bay. Nevertheless, I believe that the monster is doomed to perish by our sword. The fifty or sixty local states of the world will no doubt survive as administrative conveniences. But sooner or later sovereignty will depart from them. Sovereignty will cease, in fact if not in name, to be a local affair." ("The Trend of International Affairs Since the War", International affairs: Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Volume 10, p. 809): http://www.jstor.org/stable/3015848?seq=7
Many of these people have put forth plans for massive population reduction (as shown in the Cobden Clubs papers above). Numbers vary, but there are admissions from influential policy planning think tanks that there are plans to reduce Earth’s population by up to 80%. This will be discussed very shortly.
In the text “The First Global Revolution”, leading “intellectual elites” in the Club of Rome admitted that they manufactured the threat of anthropogenic global warming as a “unifying external threat” that would place the blame on humanity (and this would obviously make people sympathetic to the Globalist rhetoric of “global problems requiring global solutions”), and that appointed bureaucracies must replace any vestige of democracy as a governing force. The relevant chapter is called “The Vacuum”. Excerpts are as follows:
"It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary to organize and act together; in the vacuum such motivations seem to have ceased to exist‚ or have yet to be found.
The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. States have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by designating external enemies. The scapegoat practice is as old as mankind itself. When things become too difficult at home, divert attention by adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose. With the disappearance of the traditional enemy, the temptation is to designate as scapegoat religious or ethnic minorities whose differences are disturbing.
[...]The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation
Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead [so obviously the "intellectual elite" should take over decision making - as they have been doing for a very long time]. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.
[...]The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely, mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." (Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome (New York : Pantheon Books, c1991), pp. 107-108, 109-110, 115)
Interestingly, in the 1970s, this think tank was warning of the "threat" of “global cooling” which would herald in a “new ice age”: http://www.scribd.com/doc/87504398/Goals-for-Mankind
So – a think tank (really more of a syndicate) composed of billionaires and thought leaders admits to having been the main pusher of this propaganda for social engineering purposes, yet before it made exactly the opposite claims.
Others caught on to this new ice age hysteria. Consider, for instance, this April 28, 1975 article from Newsweek: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf
Here’s an interesting excerpt:
“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
Here’s an article from Harpers magazine in 1958 called "The Coming Ice Age": http://www.harpers.org/archive/1958/09/0008810
See also, the following, from Time Magazine, June 24, 1974 – “Science: Another Ice Age?”: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
Of course, we weren’t freezing to death, so we were led to gobble up the new scare story of anthropogenic global warming, a global problem that required a global solution, similar to the way in which, in the book 1984, people would suddenly stop war on Eurasia and begin war on East Asia, completely forgetting the previous propaganda.
Now, of course, there are severe problems with the propaganda these characters are trying to promote, like the fact that US Navy records shows that arctic ice volume has increased 25% in last 2 years (http://tinyurl.com/3y85hyl).
Countless scandals, like Climategate, Climategate 2.0, and actual analysis of the data itself, establish the fraudulence of the claims of AGW proponents. This is a very detailed subject, but an in depth dossier on this subject has already been written, for those who are interested (http://tinyurl.com/7tch258).
The reasoning behind this is unsound. But there are tremendous advantages for those who want to increase their control over other people. There is a long history to this, for those who are interested: http://tinyurl.com/7f3g9py
This fits in perfectly with what Gorbachev would do after the “collapse” and convergence of the Soviet system in 1991. He founded Green Cross International, and co-wrote the Earth Charter with Maurice Strong (a collectivist document that, along with Agenda 21, came out of the initial events George Hunt exposes). He stated that the Earth Charter should replace the Ten Commandments (http://tinyurl.com/2bdejz3)
He also stated: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.” (http://tinyurl.com/72qtoqq)
Thus we come back to the "Cobden Clubs" papers, which are attached.
This kind of thing is discussed in power elite circles all the time. For instance, consider some of the benevolent members of the “intellectual elite” at CSIS who are so concerned about dissent in the war and terror and resolve to employ “perception management”. They are also very concerned about the next wave of terrorism, which they say will be mass depopulation. The audio of the presentation is here: http://media.csis.org/hs/100310_terrorist_threat.mp3
Arnaud de Borchgrave complains about Hamid Gul, and then we here the following statement
@45:55 “I feel we have to become a little more comfortable with perception management – psychological operations – these are bad words in Washington right now, but ultimately a lot of the, a lot of the activities, we’re going to have the overt function”
Then we have Marc Sageman (http://csis.org/expert/marc-sageman) saying the following:
@1:01:00 “Unfortunately, I think the Next wave is going to make those Jihadi’s look a little quaint. My fear, and you know, fundamentalist environmentalists – Earth First, Gaia, you know, we’re ruining the world, we’re ruining the Earth, because of pollution, because of global warming, and in order to save the planet and preserve the human race, YOU MAY HAVE TO KILL 80% OF THE PEOPLE, because you know, because what’s really ruining it is overpopulation, and the only thing that can kill that efficiently are BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. THIS IS A COVERT BIOLOGICAL WEAPON, and you already see this on some extremist website, and this is really scary. I mean, you’re talking about five billion people dying here.” (emphasis added)
I find it amusing that he pretends that groups like Earth First have the ability to carry that out. What Sageman forgets is that groups like the Club of Rome and people like Paul Ehrlich were the ones responsible for all of this population hysteria to begin with, and many of these organizations are funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Incidentally, John Holdren, co-author with Ehrlich of the book Ecoscience, is currently the Science “Czar” of the United States. In his book, he made some very interesting proposals. As follows:
p. 837: “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
p. 786: “One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
p. 787: “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
p. 786: “Involuntary fertility control…A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.…The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
p. 838: “If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.”
p. 942: “Toward a Planetary Regime…Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
p. 917: “If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”
You can see facsimile excerpts of the book here: http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
Holdren is a disciple of the devotee of negative Eugenics, Harrison Brown (who is approvingly cited in the aforementioned text, "The First Global Revolution"). In fact, Holdren praised Brown as recently as 2007. On p. 104 of Brown’s 1954 book The Challenge of Man’s Future, he said, “Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range degeneration of human stock? Unfortunately, at the present time there is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known to be of a hereditary nature. Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs.”
On p. 260 of his tract, Brown said, “In the first place, it is amply clear that population stabilization and a world composed of completely independent sovereign states are incompatible. Populations cannot be stabilized by agreement any more than levels of armament can be stabilized by agreement. And, as in the latter case, a world authority is needed which has the power of making, interpreting, and enforcing, within specified spheres, laws which are directly applicable to the individual. Indeed, population stabilization is one of the two major problems with which a world government must necessarily concern itself.
Given a world authority with jurisdiction over population problems, the task of assessing maximum permissible population levels on a regional basis need not be prohibitively difficult.”
More on Harrison Brown is here: http://zombietime.com/john_holdren_and_harrison_brown/
Others have expressed sympathy with these ideas as well. Prince Phillip said, “If I were to be reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus, to lower human population levels” (cited in Jay H. Lehr and Janet K. Lehr. Standard handbook of environmental science, health, and technology. p. 20.57): http://tinyurl.com/6kpkrm2
Bill Gates even devoted himself to the depopulation program, admitting, “”The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [number of 9 billion] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” (http://tinyurl.com/yhz2k8b – see, for more, the following: http://tinyurl.com/2bf5xmk)
So, it appears that we can expect bioweapons in the near future.
Many of these people use propaganda about “overpopulation”. This is also based on falsehoods. Henry George refuted Malthus in “Progress and Poverty” (http://tinyurl.com/7wom4mt) (and of course his work has been obfuscated, see “The Corruption of Economics” by Mason Gaffney), and modern projections from population reduction enthusiasts have continued to be inaccurate (http://tinyurl.com/32bh3ws).
Harrison Brown, who worked with many of the circles who pushed this propaganda, and who, as noted, was the mentor of the current science “Czar” John Holdren, noted, in The Challenge of Man’s Future, that this dogma was inaccurate, and that in fact the human carrying capacity for Earth is between 50 and 200 billion people (with a lower style of life). As Buckminister Fuller noted (http://tinyurl.com/bpem2z), with optimum utilization of the resources and technological capabilities we have now, we can avert this easily, and rapidly improve quality of life. For Brown, and many others, this fact was irrelevant, and the gospel of depopulation had to be pushed and implemented to the greatest extent possible. He summed up this mentality as follows (p. 221): http://tinyurl.com/7yl65bp
"If humanity had its way, it would not rest content until the earth is covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots."
May 19, 2013 Subject:
Complementing Hunt's presentation is a presentation by Aldous Huxley, an insider affiliated with many key internationalist circles, discussing emerging trends stemming from the combination of long term oligarchical power with scientific technique. He noted how this would lead to the long term degeneration of the bulk of humanity in a speech before UC Berkeley entitled "The Ultimate Revolution" - using the term "scientific dictatorship" to describe the result of combining scientific technique and oligarchical power. The excerpt given above captures the spirit of the presentation.
Corroboration of Huxley's presentation comes from the notes of Dr. Lawrence Dunnegan concerning a conference hosted by Richard Day, a director of Planned Parenthood, given in 1969, concerning social changes to take place in the upcoming decades. He put forth his notes in a text called "The New Order of Barbarians", which is the second document attached. While not authenticated, all of the points in that text can be independently corroborated, and can be clearly seen to be in effect today. It is the first document attached.
One of the ways these things have been accomplished is through the "education" system, which is designed to stupefy people, and submerge them into a Global Beehive. The architects of the modern educational system made no effort to hide this. They admitted in their own writings that they designed it as an attack against us.
Frederick T Gates, Rockefeller associate and director of the Rockefeller Foundation General Education Board, succinctly disclosed objectives and intentions of these people when, writing in 1913, he said:
"Is there aught a remedy for this neglect of rural life? Let us, at least, yield ourselves to the gratifications of a beautiful dream that there is. In our dream, we have limitless resources, and THE PEOPLE YIELD THEMSELVES WITH PERFECT DOCILITY TO OUR MOLDING HAND. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science. We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply. ... The task we set before ourselves is very simple as well as a very beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just where they are. So we will organize our children and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way, in the homes, in the shops and on the farm." ("The Country School of Tomorrow", Occasional Papers No. 1(General Education Board, New York, 1913). p. 6 - emphasis added): http://tinyurl.com/3e8fw4e
These ideas were formalized later by the tax exempt foundations, and documentation delineating this top-down subversion of legitimate educational functions fell into the hands of the Reece Congressional Committee.
Norman Dodd, in his report to the Reece Committee, noted that his in investigation of foundations he found that one thing the grants had consistently been used for was "Directing education in the United States toward an international view-point and discrediting the traditions to which, it (formerly) had been dedicated." To support this statement, he stated that "This story, fully documented, is told in The Turning of the Tides by Paul W. Shafer and John Howland Snow". The citations in the book are verifiable, and the information is beyond important. it shows how an international oligarchy, via tax exempt foundations, used/is using education and other means to foster the correct environment for a collectivist World Government, an international version of Plato's Republic. It must be read to understand these issues: http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=PDFsml_AD2/The_Turning_Of_The_Tides-Paul_Shafer-John_Snow-1953-191pgs-SOC-POL-EDU.sml.pdf&id=515
In his report Dodd stated,
"1933-1936, a change took place which was so drastic as to constitute a "revolution". They also indicated conclusively that the responsibility for the economic welfare of the American people had been transferred heavily to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government; that a corresponding change in education had taken place from an impetus outside of the local community, and that this "revolution" had occurred without violence and with the full consent of an overwhelming majority of the electorate."
Dodd would give direct evidence with a specific example - he noted that the American Historical Association, financed by the Carnegie Endowment, "concluded that the day of the individual in the United States had come to an end and that the future would be characterized, inevitably, by some form of collectivism and an increase in the authority of the State."
The text he was referring to, the American Historical Association's Report on the Commission on Social Studies, supports these claims, and is direct evidence of top-down subversion (a "silent revolution"). It's a very hard read, with some doublespeak, and parts of it may sound very good to people (who like being managed in an authoritarian, managerial collectivist state). Relevant excerpts are on p. 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 23, 25, 27, 34, and 35: http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=PDFsml_AD2%2FReport_On_The_Commission_On_Social_Studies-Krey-Counts-Kimmel-Kelley-1934-179pgs-EDU.sml.pdf&id=395
Dodd also gave insight into the progression of internationalism and the corruption of education, in this very important interview: http://archive.org/details/TheTax-exemptFoundations-Excerpts
James B. Conant was an extremely powerful political figure, serving as a leader of the WWII atom bomb project, and high commissioner of the American zone in Germany after WWII. He wrote a book entitled *The Child, the Parent, and the State*, said (p. 91) that a "revolution" in education had occurred between 1905 and 1930, and for the nature of this revolution, he referenced the work of a colleague (p. 92): "Reading Professor Inglis' volume in the light of what has happened since was to me a fascinating experience. One saw a revolution through the eyes of a revolutionary": http://www.archive.org/details/childtheparentan012902mbp
The text he was referring to, entitled "Principles of Secondary Education", was written by Alexander Inglis, for whom a lecture at Harvard is named. In the text, Inglis sets out 6 functions of secondary education, with very high diction:
1) The adjustive or adaptive function - this is to condition obedience to authority in pupils.
2) The integrating function - this is to ensure conformity among pupils.
3) The diagnostic and directive function - to determine the proper social role of the student.
4) The differentiating function - to sort students by role.
5) The selective function - applying social Darwinism to pupils, tagging the Socially Darwinist "unfit".
6) The propaedeutic function - those at the top of the social Darwinist game become managers over the others.
Inglis' text is available here: http://www.archive.org/details/principlesofseco00ingliala
Relevant passages occur on pp. 375-383 and 368-369.
John Taylor Gatto’s important study complements what has been presented so far: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm
To illustrate the extent to which education in this country has been degraded, compare the following 8th grade test from 1895 to tests of today: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/quizzes/8thgrade_test.cfm
Luckily, some are working to remedy this problem: http://www.triviumeducation.com/
Jan Irvin, the person who made that Trivium Education website, collaborated with a fellow correspondent named Richard Andrew Grove, and John Taylor Gatto, that gives an overview of topics very relevant to the world today: http://theultimatehistorylesson.com/
Many in the upper echelons of academia are quite cognizant of this trend towards the use of scientific power for the purpose of social control. The philosopher Gilles Deleuze elaborated on it at length in his essay "Postscript on the Societies of Control": https://files.nyu.edu/dnm232/public/deleuze_postcript.pdf
Aldous Huxley gave this presentation on behalf of the Ford Foundation's subsidiary, the Center for the Study of Democracy*. After that presentation, he told the technocrats of that institution that the source concerning how scientific technique could be employed to regiment society was "The Technological Society" by Jacques Ellul (this information comes from the introduction to "The Technological Society"). Ted Kaczynski, the "Unabomber", was deeply influenced by Ellul, and his actual legacy has been distorted by a rather malicious corporate media. He was quite aware of the rather malicious nature of the programs that the individuals he was attacking were engaged in, and distortions in the framing of him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doQAwLb-DEE
*The Ford Foundation, remember, was condemned for collectivist and internationalist social control schemes by Norman Dodd of the Reece Congressional Committee. His interview, linked to above, is also quite relevant.
Scientific technique need not be used only to suppress populations, it can also be used to destroy them. remember, again, the Cobden Clubs papers, attached above.
But at present, society is quite degenerate. Many people labor under the misconception that we are “living better” than we ever have. The truth is far different. The research of Weston A. Price (http://tinyurl.com/77bvr7z) showed that the living obstacle for so-called “primitives” was lack of sanitation and lack of the trauma relieving aspects of allopathic medicine, but nevertheless, they had extremely good facial structures with the diet they had (which, for us, would translate as grass fed meat, fish, eggs, raw dairy products, nuts, and leafy vegetables), but their physiological structures degenerated greatly when they were introduced to the western diet. This research empirically proved that the Western diet (which included a lot of sugar, vegetable oil, and wheat) was a root cause of illness. And according to the research of Sally Fallon Morell and Mary Enig (which I am in the process of getting from them to verify), the percentage of Americans living to 100 in 1830 was 0.020, the percentage of Americans living to 100 in 1990 was 0.015, and the percentage of Americans living today expected to live to 100 is 0.001 (http://tinyurl.com/86pk3vf).
Many other cultures had much better quality of lives than Americans do today. Dr. Gerhard Shrauzer, who recently awarded the naturopath, veterinarian, and orthomolecular physician Dr. Joel Wallach the Klaus Schwarz medal (http://tinyurl.com/7t9dvf4) for his research into Cystic Fibrosis 30 years ago, noted, in defense of Dr. Wallach in an article against critics (http://tinyurl.com/89xs5py – and this particular critic is less than intellectually honest, see the following: http://tinyurl.com/7f492gn) that:
“Physicians such as Sir Robert McCarrison established that the Hunzas remain remarkably free of disease during their long lives. This has been attributed to lifestyle, diet, agricultural practices and the mineral rich glacier milk used for irrigation and as drinking water. [J.I. Rodale (1949), "The Healthy Hunzas." Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA, 1949.] The villagers of Vilacabamba in Ecuador, similarly are famous for their longevity and good health. According to extensive clinical studies, this population rarely develops arteriosclerosis, diabetes or solid tumors. Lymphocytic leukemia was the only malignant condition found and was observed only in some very old people toward the end of their lives.[F.Silio, A. H. Laguna, L.e. Garcia, J.G. Guaman, M.S. Salvador (1966) Mineral composition of foods and drinking water from Vilacabamba. In: Proc. Metal Ions in Biology and Medicine Vol. 4; Ph. Collery, J. Corbello, J.L. Domingo, J. D. Etienne, J.m. Llobet eds. John Libbey Eurotext, Paris, 1996, pp 563-565.] The health and long life spans of the Vilacabambans were attributed to an apparently optimal mineral composition of the soil, plants and water in the area.[a: M. Salvador (1972) Vilacabamba, Tierra de Longevos. Caa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana, Quito, 1972 b: M. Salvador (1980) : Aterosclerosis en Vilacabamba. Medicina y Ciencias biologicas XVI, 28.]
Other cultures with long life spans are the Russian Georgians, the Abkhazians, Azerbaijanis and Armenians, the peoples residing near Lake Titicaca and some tribes of Tibet. In his book “Rare Earths: Forbidden Cures,” Wallach shows the copy of a May 1973 newspaper clipping showing the Azerbaijani Shjimos Mislimov at his 168th birthday. Mislimov, who died in September of the same year, [M. Williams-Sarkisian, B. Apisson: A diet for happy, healthy 100 years," German Edition, Die Kaukasus-Diat, Ullstein Verlag Frankfurt, 1985.] as he was at the time the oldest person living in the Soviet Union, a special postage stamp was issued to honor him.”
There is no reason why we shouldn’t exceed these people in lifespan, but that is not the agenda. Much of our food (http://tinyurl.com/82uo97s) and water (http://tinyurl.com/d348h9z) is poison. On the subject of food, the above source by Jeffery Smith (who has of course been attacked for his work: http://tinyurl.com/27cp8nj) contains a plethora of information. His views have been corroborated by many studies, but this is seldom discussed, as in mainstream media, the purported "benefits" of GMO food are touted as a means of "preventing hunger". GMO foods actually produce lower yields (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html). - in the October 25, 1998 New York Times Magazine article Playing God in the Garden, Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, was quoted as saying (http://books.google.com/books?id=8vyBx61gXjEC&pg=PA79&dq=%22Monsanto+should+not+have+to+vouchsafe+the+safety+of+biotech+food.+Our+interest+is+in+selling+as+much+of+it+as+possible.+Assuring+its+safety+is+the+F.D.A.%27s+job%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yvvsUKC0Ke70igKOtYDgDg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Monsanto%20should%20not%20have%20to%20vouchsafe%20the%20safety%20of%20biotech%20food.%20Our%20interest%20is%20in%20selling%20as%20much%20of%20it%20as%20possible.%20Assuring%20its%20safety%20is%20the%20F.D.A.%27s%20job%22&f=false) "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job". Yet the FDA's Statement of Policy - Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties states that (http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm) "Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety." - The BBC reported (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/545504.stm) on the ecological hazard of the GM process in an article entitled "'Trojan Gene' could wipe out fish" - Gilles Seralini, author of the famous GM study (with rather horrific pictures: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637) showing cancer in mice fed GM corn, faced (unwarranted: http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo-whitewash/5316294) criticism from the establishment, but has refuted (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512008149) criticism of his work. and a previous meta-analysis (http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10) established organ damage from GM foods, sterility percolating down the genetic lineage has been found in rats fed GMO diets (http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/16/6524765/), and a plethora of other studies have also shown problems (http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/pseudo-scientific-defense-of-gmo-safety-is-smoke-and-mirrors/). Also, in Feb. of 2012, the journal Archives of Toxicology published a study showing that the herbicide Roundup is toxic to human DNA even when diluted to concentrations 450-fold lower than used in agricultural applications (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331240). One study in Nature (http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n2/abs/nbt934.html), while ruling out the overall effect of horizontal gene transfer from GMOs, nevertheless noted that the genetic material in soybeans that make them herbicide tolerant transferred into the DNA of human gut bacteria and continued to function. Other studies on animals with similar cells to humans were more emphatic. Animal research published in 2003 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15612415) in the journal of Environmental Biosafety Research showed that genetically modified lactic acid bacteria are capable of transferring recombinant genes sequences directly into Enteroccous faecalis, a naturally occurring species of digestive tract bacteria found in humans. Other animal research (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9819049) on orally ingested foreign DNA not only shows it is capable of transferring to, and/or altering genetic information within, the animal consuming it, but is also capable of affecting the genetics of the fetuses and newborn of pregnant mice who were fed it. FDA internal documents (http://www.biointegrity.org/) show that the FDA approval process was corrupt - at odds with the recommendations of its own scientists. And a guide for the public (http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58) by two genetic engineers, also further controverts defenses of GM foods. Also - there is a discrepancy between the promoters of GMOs and their actual eating habits: The Rockefeller foundation is behind much of the "green revolution", yet the Rockefellers themselves are devotees of organics (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/21/dining/dine-at-the-rockefellers-get-in-touch-with-the-earth.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm). The Chinese Communist Party elite eat untainted organic food grown in special gardens (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/16/world/la-fg-china-elite-farm-20110917) while the bulk of the population eats tainted food. Nancy Pelosi got congress to have an organic kitchen, but certainly didn't care for the normal citizenry - as this article notes (http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/Pelosi-leads-the-House-to-go-organic-in-its-3234457.php) - Pelosi "may have left her progressive instincts at the barn door when she drove a starch-, sugar- and fat-bloated bill that all but left out organic farmers through the House last summer, but when it comes to food for Congress, it's out with high-fructose corn syrup and in with uncaged hens and hormone-free milk." They are hip to the mythological nature of the deceptions that are used to sell tainted food.
And genetic modification of corn and soy so that it resists the popular herbicide Roundup (glyphosate), is creating new gut destroying pathogens, according to the research of professor Don Huber (http://tinyurl.com/6y6k7vt).
Glyphosate has been linked to all kinds of environmental and health problems in previous peer-reviewed literature (http://tinyurl.com/78g9omm).
And it’s not just limited to Genetic Modification of Food. Additives like aspartame and MSG are quite toxic. The FDA and *industry funded* studies have positive things to say about these substances, however, *independent/non-industry funded* studies on aspartame that are condemnatory keep coming in and internal FDA memoranda link aspartame to cancer. An information hub on all of this is here: http://www.mpwhi.com/main.htm
A similar situation exists for MSG: http://www.msgtruth.org/contents.htm
Of course, there are problems with what constitutes “organic” food also, necessitating that health conscious people grow their own food or buy from farmer’s markets (http://tinyurl.com/7dwkshf).
As for water, the Journal of the American Medical Association noted, just before U.S. drinking water became fluoridated: “Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, probably because of their capacity to modify the metabolism of cells by changing the permeability of the cell membrane and by inhibiting certain enzyme systems … The sources of fluorine intoxication are drinking water containing 1 ppm or more of fluorine, fluorine compounds used as insecticidal sprays for fruits and vegetables (cryolite and barium fluosilicate) and the mining and conversion of phosphate rock to superphosphate, which is used as fertilizer. The fluorine content of phosphate rock, about 25% of the fluorine present, is volatilized and represents a pouring into the atmosphere of approximately 25,000 tons of pure fluorine annually … The known effects of chronic fluorine intoxication are those of hypophasia of the teeth, which has been called mottled enamel, and of bone sclerosis.” – Journal of the American Medical Association, editorial, September 18, 1943 (123:50): http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/123/3/150.2.short
The following clip is an experiment exposing cells to Fluoride during the time period. It also shows that government knew about the dangers of fluoride during that time period: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3MRUqUJlYk
Fluoride has been linked to brain damage (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048357509001205), and chromosome damage (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19748546).
More information on how sodium fluoride causes brain damage is here: http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride_literature.aspx
It is interesting that nicotine stimulates those brain receptors that fluoride suppresses. Perhaps that's why it is so condemned: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036202002738
For an overview of all of this, the following article is of relevance: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31568
And I have written the nucleus of a more thorough overview: http://archive.org/details/OnFluoride
Concerning another failure of dentistry, it is important to note the fact that people put toxic sources of mercury into their mouths with dental amalgams. An in depth video overview of this is given here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ylnQ-T7oiA
See, for more on this, the corroborating study, “Dental "silver" tooth fillings: a source of mercury exposure revealed by whole-body image scan and tissue analysis”: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2636872
It’s not just diet. Modern allopathic medicine is the leading cause of death in the United States: http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2005/pdf/2005-v20n01-p021.pdf
This is obviously intentional. One needs only to look at the history of vaccines to realize this. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny has shown, using CDC documents, that the decline in diseases was irrelevant to the rate at which vaccines were being introduced, that the diseases declined because of sanitation and other factors. But it’s not just that they are unnecessary. They are quite often deadly. Maurice Hilleman, the developer of Merck’s vaccine program, admitted that the polio vaccine was deliberately contaminated with the viral carcinogen SV40. In addition to this, one can find an abundance of evidence in the peer-reviewed literature on the lethality of vaccines. I cover all of this in the following essay: http://archive.org/details/HorrorOfVaccinationExposed
The Cancer rate has skyrocketed from these artificially introduced electromagnetic/chemical toxins: http://tinyurl.com/6p46gjl
Condemning facts proving the anthropogenic origins of AIDS come from the Tuesday, July 1, 1969 transcript of the hearings of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 91st Congress, First Session Subcommittee on Department of Defense, Part 5
Abortion is also a thriving industry nowadays, especially considering it’s intended goal (at least as it culturally promoted now) – to kill black people. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, noted in a December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble that “we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” (http://tinyurl.com/6umgmsg) Things have certainly worked out as she intended (http://tinyurl.com/7h8q2qm). It is also obviously considered necessary in our modern economy, since not only are vaccines that cause harm made with aborted fetal tissue (http://tinyurl.com/7rvp4b3), but also, as the Washington Times noted, beauty creams are using this “technology” as well (http://tinyurl.com/6lht7zz), and HEK 293 (Human Embryonic Kidney) cells form the basis of the “flavor enhancing” technology of the biotech company Senomyx (http://tinyurl.com/6ubhpvk – and Senomyx “technology” forms the basis of some of the “flavors” in “food” from Campbell Soup, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Kraft Foods, and Solae). Furthermore, abortion gives the woman who undergoes the process a greater chance of breast cancer (http://tinyurl.com/23rmsqd). It’s a beautiful warfare strategy.
And then there is of course depleted uranium (http://tinyurl.com/3a6gdm). This is a way to really harm civilian populations in the countries you are attacking, as it contaminates populated areas for long periods of time, it accomplishes physical damage and radioactive damage simultaneously, and it spreads rapidly around the environment it contaminates (http://tinyurl.com/7ftuv9j). And it creates the most hideous deformations one could possibly imagine (http://tinyurl.com/zvxkd).
Our skies are being sprayed with aluminum and barium: http://www.gnosticmedia.com/michael-j-murphy-interview-geo-engineering-how-chemtrails-are-killing-your-autonomy-150/
Weather modification using aerosol spraying has been going on for an extremely long time - it was even the subject of a 1974 Senate Hearing: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44374249/Weather-Modification-During-Vietnam-War-1974-Senate-Hearing
A plethora of government documentation discusses it: http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=1441
Air Force Literature, particularly "Weather As a Force Multiplier", also discusses this: http://tinyurl.com/6yfwlep
Seymour Hersh noted that weather warfare was used in Vietnam: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20D13FB3F5F117B93C1A9178CD85F468785F9&scp=1&sq=Rainmaking+Is+Used+As+Weapon+by+U.S&st=cse,
And it has come out that the British Government secretly sprayed pathogens over the British population: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience
Dr. Michel Chossudovsky has noted that the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is an operational weapon of mass destruction with the potential to be used against "rogue states", with the power to alter the weather, disrupt regional electrical power systems, and modify the Earth's magnetic field, and negatively affect people's health: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO409F.html
The EU Parliament, in a report on HAARP, noted, “With its far-reaching impact on the environment HAARP is a matter of global concern and we have to ask whether its advantages really outweigh the risks. The environmental impact and the ethical aspect must be closely examined before any further research and testing takes place. HAARP is a project of which the public is almost completely unaware, and this needs to be remedied.”
It furthermore noted the following chilling fact: “From the 1950s the USA conducted explosions of nuclear material in the Van Allen Belt to investigate the effect of the electro-magnetic pulse generated by nuclear weapon explosions at these heights on radio communications and the operation of radar. This created new magnetic radiation belts which covered nearly the whole earth. The electrons travelled along magnetic lines of force and created an artificial Aurora Borealis above the North Pole. These military tests are liable to disrupt the Van Allen belt for a long period. The earth's magnetic field could be disrupted over large areas, which would obstruct radio communications. According to US scientists it could take hundreds of years for the Van Allen belt to return to normal. HAARP could result in changes in weather patterns. It could also influence whole ecosystems, especially in the sensitive Antarctic regions.
Another damaging consequence of HAARP is the occurrence of holes in the ionosphere caused by the powerful radio beams. The ionosphere protects us from incoming cosmic radiation. The hope is that the holes will fill again, but our experience of change in the ozone layer points in the other direction. This means substantial holes in the ionosphere that protects us.”: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FTEXT+REPORT+A4-1999-0005+0+DOC+XML+V0%2F%2FEN
Lt. Col. John B. Alexander, in an article in Military Review entitled "The New Mental BattleField", noted that "Soviet researchers studying controlled behavior have also examined the effects of electromagnetic radiation on humans and have applied those techniques against the US Embassy in Moscow. Researchers suggest that certain extremely-low-frequency (ELF) emissions possess psychoactive characteristics.15 These transmissions can be used to induce depression or irritability in a target population. The application of large-scale ELF behavior modification could have horrendous impact.":www.icomw.org/documents/alexander.pdf
More on this is in the following CNN presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqb-o1_PWwg&list=PL9FC3D8CF17F09C91&feature=plpp_play_all
Dr. Jose Delgado, one of the most famous mind-control proponents, was able to overtake animals brain activity with microchips in the 1960s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQtd7ANYlq8
The following article, "The forgotten era of Brainchips", whitewashes Delgado, but still notes that his work was taken very seriously by the Office of Naval Research: http://www.wireheading.com/delgado/brainchips.pdf
Delgado noted, in a speech recorded in the February 24, 1974 edition of the Congressional Record, No. 26, Vol. 118: "We need a program of psychosurgery for political control of our society.The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated. The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective. Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electrically control the brain. Someday, armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain."
He was not condemned as a psychopath. He kept on with his respectable academic career - showing the level of comfort with these types of thoughts in these circles
And as technology advances, the methods of control and domination will only increase given the road we’re currently on (for the mid-level people, who do not fall into extreme poverty, those who Orwell would call the outer party). An overview of what this might begin to look like, just in the next few decades, is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1QyddJgR80
That trailer is actually consistent with scientific trends as reported by the following NSF document: http://www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/Report/NBIC_pre_publication.pdf
MSNBC is even telling us to expect a cashless society and a micro-chipped population in the near future: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybKSwuIHvL8
Now, much of this essay does indeed contradict mainstream academic nostrums. This is to be expected, since academia in many ways produces ideological justifications for the illegitimate power of the dominant minority. Academia is often an extremely pernicious system of mind control. Many seem to adhere to "expert" opinion, not realizing that this might be tainted for ulterior purposes. Indiana University professor of education, Robert F. Arnove, noted in his text Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism:
"The power of the foundation is not that of dictating what will be studied. Its power consists in defining professional and intellectual parameters, in determining who will receive support to study what subjects in what settings. And the foundation's power resides in suggesting certain types of activities it favors and is willing to support. As [influential political theorist and economist Harold] Laski noted, "the foundations do not control, simply because, in the direct and simple sense of the word, there is no need for them to do so. They have only to indicate the immediate direction of their minds for the whole university world to discover that it always meant to gravitate to that angle of the intellectual compass."" (Robert F. Arnove, ed., Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad (Indiana University Press: Boston, 1980), p. 319)
Marcia Angell was formerly the editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. In an article entitled "Big Pharma, Bad Medicine: How corporate dollars corrupt research and education", she detailed some of these problems: http://bostonreview.net/BR35.3/angell.php
In the 1946 Annual Report of the Rockefeller Foundation, we find, on p. 188, the following (in opposition to the efforts of revisionists like Harry Elmer Barnes, Charles Callan Tansill, etc.): http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/81f6aa9b-5d37-4a64-a65c-6327e71077c6-1946.pdf
"The Committee on Studies of the Council on Foreign Relations is concerned that the debunking journalistic campaign following World War I should not be repeated and believes that the American public deserves a clear competent statement of our basic aims and activities during the second World War."
In other words, omission of inconvenient facts.
This pattern can be shown in many other fields as well. For instance, 587 of the references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were NOT peer reviewed. This problem is not local to one chapter, but permeates the entire report, with few exceptions. This is unacceptable, because the IPCC is responsible for formulating reports that will be taken up by policy members and have the potential to affect every individual on the planet: http://www.noconsensus.org
And more than 650 leading international scientists have dissented over anthropogenic global warming claims: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
Contrary to claims of almost total consensus on the AGW issue, a comprehensive survey of published climate research from Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, using the same database and search terms as the previous study purporting this, found that of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
Yet, in spite of that, anthropogenic global warming is widely held as true based on academic consensus, and globalist policies are enacted using it as an excuse.
And psychiatry is a brilliant con - an ingenious method of social control masquerading as "medicine". the 1961 Report: Action for Mental Health (http://books.google.com/books?id=L65rAAAAMAAJ&q=%22be+designed+to+bend+the+student+to+the+realities+of+society%22&dq=%22be+designed+to+bend+the+student+to+the+realities+of+society%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eXdsUYaAGKLTiwLg0YC4CQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA) stated that education should "…be designed to bend the student to the realities of society, especially by way of vocational education… the curriculum should be designed to promote mental health as an instrument for social progress and a means of altering culture…" [it states that this will help the spread of "peace", which of course, in reality, means pacification] The psychiatrist William Sargent noted the following: "Jesus Christ might simply have returned to his carpentry following the use of modern [psychiatric] treatments." ("The movement in psychiatry away from the philosophical," The Times, 22 August 1974, p. 14). Dr. Peter Breggin, director of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, quite cogently stated (http://books.google.com/books?id=8pgapP2X9_AC&pg=PT14&dq=If+I+wanted+to+ruin+someone%27s+life,+I+would+convince+the+person+that+that+biological+psychiatry+is+right+-+that+relationships+mean+nothing,+that+choice+is+impossible,+and+that+the+mechanics+of+a+broken+brain+reign+over+our+emotions+and+conduct.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=r0mMUJmyFamujALz4YCYAw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA): "If I wanted to ruin someone's life, I would convince the person that that biological psychiatry is right - that relationships mean nothing, that choice is impossible, and that the mechanics of a broken brain reign over our emotions and conduct. If I wanted to impair an individual's capacity to create empathetic, loving relationships, I would prescribe psychiatric drugs, all of which blunt our highest psychological and spiritual functions." - Also, the Rosenhan experiment showed that psychiatrists were unable to distinguish between "insane" and "sane" people (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tmiKz-jjoE) - Furthermore, in a 1994 article, Harvard Medical School researchers reported that outcomes for people diagnosed as schizophrenic who were given psychiatric care had worsened in the most recent decades. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8092334) The World Health Organization has found twice that schizophrenic outcomes in the United States and developed countries were much worse than the poorer countries. Sufferers of a psychotic break in undeveloped countries had a chance of doing well, without psychiatric treatment in a few years time. But sufferers in the United States, or other "developed" countries, were likely to be chronically ill within that time (see this(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1574549) and this(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1565705) - the ladder study can be read here(http://www.madinamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/who2.pdf)). Also - From the following Frontline interview, we have the following(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/medicating/experts/exist.html): PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER:"Skeptics say that there's no biological marker--that it is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it."Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center: "That's tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn't have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid--schizophrenia, manic depression, Tourette's Syndrome--all of these would be thrown out. ... There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn't make them invalid." And in an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/19/science/scientist-at-work-allen-j-frances-revamping-psychiatrists-bible.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm), “Scientist At Work,” Daniel Goleman called Dr. Allen Frances, the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the DSM IV, “Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment…”. In the wired article "Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness", he noted (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/ff_dsmv/): “There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.” In the last page of the article, we find the following (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/ff_dsmv/5/): "Diagnosis, he says, is “part of the magic,” part of the power to heal patients—and to convince them to endure the difficulties of treatment. The sun is up now, and Frances is working on his first Diet Coke of the day. “You know those medieval maps?” he says. “In the places where they didn’t know what was going on, they wrote ‘Dragons live here.’” He went on: “We have a dragon’s world here. But you wouldn’t want to be without that map.”"
Often, entire social movements are fabricated. For instance, the 1960s psychedelic and later New Age movements were the products of the intelligence community, international banking community, and subsidized academics associated with Esalen. The Huxleys were actually key social engineers associated with this: https://www.facebook.com/ben.steigmann/posts/349738678459880
Much of the New Age movement in the 70s and onwards, with it's "positive thinking" mantra and globalist pretense, which Daniel Taylor has given rather lucid examples of, fits right into the material given at the beginning of this essay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl4PAKjSjSg
This is not to condemn esoteric pursuits - which the New Age is actually an inversion of. Esoteric science emphasizes wholeness, while the New Age emphasizes the submergence of the individual into a greater Utopia.
On the subject of 2012, which was postulated a key year in that movement, it is important to note that in the introduction to the Trilateral Commission text "Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World's Economy and the Earth's Ecology", Maurice Strong wrote "The authors demonstrate that the world has now moved beyond economic interdependence to ecological interdependence - and to an intermeshing of the two. They argue persuasively that this interlocking of the world's economy and the earth's ecology is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. ...[Jim Macniell] is now advising me on the road to Rio": http://tinyurl.com/9cnncgq
And later in the introduction, he wrote, "Rio will be the largest summit conference ever held, and it will have the political capacity to produce the basic changes needed in our national and international economic agendas and in our institutions of governance to ensure a secure and sustainable future for the world community. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life so that the world will not be forced to confront the deepening crises that will inevitably result if we fail to make the transition to sustainability." : http://tinyurl.com/9jm53q5
This gives insight, again, into the fact that we are dealing here with a manufactured cult acting as a cover for global village proposals that are dramatically divergent from the smiling face and veneer being used to justify them.
The sociologist Jacques Ellul, commenting on the tendency for pseudo-intellectuals to absorb ideas based on the mainstream consensus, noted, in his book "Propaganda":
"Naturally, the educated man does not believe in propaganda, he shrugs and is convinced that propaganda has no effect on him. This is, in fact, one of his great weaknesses, and propagandists are well aware that in order to reach someone, one must first convince him that propaganda is ineffectual and not very clever. Because he is convinced of his own superiority, the intellectual is much more vulnerable than anybody else to this maneuver."
And on p. 81, he noted:
"The individual's adherence to his group is "conscious" because he is aware of it and recognizes it, but it is ultimately involuntary because he is trapped in a dialectic and in a group that leads him unfailingly to his adherence. His adherence is also 'intellectual' because he can express his conviction clearly and logically, but it is not genuine because the information, the data, the reasoning, that have led him to adherence to the group were themselves deliberately falsified in order to lead him there."
And this pattern of information control goes beyond academia. Most mainstream news is fraudulent. This was brought out lucidly by the journalist Nick Sparks in the UK Independent article "How the Spooks Took Over the News": http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/how-the-spooks-took-over-the-news-780672.html
In a corresponding article in the UK Guardian, entitled "Our media have become mass producers of distortion", Davies wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/04/comment.pressandpublishing
"I commissioned research from specialists at Cardiff University, who surveyed more than 2,000 UK news stories from the four quality dailies (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent) and the Daily Mail. They found two striking things. First, when they tried to trace the origins of their "facts", they discovered that only 12% of the stories were wholly composed of material researched by reporters. With 8% of the stories, they just couldn't be sure. The remaining 80%, they found, were wholly, mainly or partially constructed from second-hand material, provided by news agencies and by the public relations industry. Second, when they looked for evidence that these "facts" had been thoroughly checked, they found this was happening in only 12% of the stories.
The implication of those two findings is truly alarming. Where once journalists were active gatherers of news, now they have generally become mere passive processors of unchecked, second-hand material, much of it contrived by PR to serve some political or commercial interest. Not journalists, but churnalists. An industry whose primary task is to filter out falsehood has become so vulnerable to manipulation that it is now involved in the mass production of falsehood, distortion and propaganda."
The simulacrum is highly weaponized. Movements are created for various personality types, and neutralize each of them, so that they cannot effectively contribute their unique attributes for constructive change: http://wwws.forummotion.com/t66-dialectics-vectors-vector-leaders
So we are being assaulted - physically, mentally, and spiritually. Hopefully some of the information provided in the latter half of this essay will help ward off the physical assaults.
As for the mental assaults, it is quite obvious that this CULTure is a hoax, and remembering that should provide some protection. A remedy to this fact is a willingness to consider marginal sources of information from whatever side of the political spectrum (or whatever spectrum of debate one is analyzing), and go beyond that - extracting whatever material is solid from all these sources. Of course, one should be empirical in one's approach. An introduction to the methodology enabling one to do this is provided in the following resource: http://www.triviumeducation.com/
And spiritually - we seem to have gotten quite off track, though there may arise insight, through a perception of the movement of violence in our thoughts, feelings, and actions.
I brought this out in a log I wrote last year: http://www.scribd.com/doc/91194346/Start-of-log-%E2%80%93-week-of-11-1-2011-11-8-2011
"We think we "love" each other. It is amazing how thoroughly we despise each other. What we are doing is sitting here or standing, with this self-reflective "conscious" movement violently projecting itself outward, seeking total domination. So, for instance - I might wish to gain knowledge in a particular area, but my motivation is to use this as a path to a kind of pseudo-power. In being with someone, it is out of the idea that this will make my life more interesting or that I am being a "good person". In relationships, we are using others as a path to some kind of gratification. As parents, we do not "love" our children, rather, we wish for our children to fulfill our ideal, thus furthering the scope of this domination drive. We are using others as tools, as a means of expanding this violent process! In this respect we are all totalitarians.
It is essential to totally understand this. If this cannot be realized, then the present catastrophe will only continue, ever expanding, until it reaches its ultimate triumph of universal destruction, or at least destruction to the total extent of our technological capabilities.
Is it possible for this insidiousness to end? Is it possible to give total, absolute attention to this process? For it is at this point that actual power, and love, emerges."
J. Krishnamurti brought this out lucidly: "Whatever we do at present seems to lead to chaos, seems to lead to sorrow and unhappiness. Look at your own life and you will see that our living is always on the border of sorrow. Our work, our social activity, our politics, the various gatherings of nations to stop war, all produce further war. Destruction follows in the wake of living; whatever we do leads to death. That is what is actually taking place. Can we stop this misery at once, and not go on always being caught by the wave of confusion and sorrow? That is, great teachers, whether the Buddha or the Christ, have come; they have accepted faith, making themselves, perhaps, free from confusion and sorrow. But they have never prevented sorrow, they have never stopped confusion. Confusion goes on, sorrow goes on. If you, seeing this social and economic confusion, this chaos, this misery, withdraw into what is called the religious life and abandon the world, you may feel that you are joining these great teachers; but the world goes on with its chaos, its misery and destruction, the everlasting suffering of its rich and poor. So, our problem, yours and mine, is whether we can step out of this misery instantaneously. If, living in the world, you refuse to be a part of it, you will help others out of this chaos - not in the future, not tomorrow, but now. Surely that is our problem. War is probably coming, more destructive, more appalling in its form. Surely we cannot prevent it, because the issues are much too strong and too close. But you and I can perceive the confusion and misery immediately, can we not? We must perceive them, and then we shall be in a position to awaken the same understanding of truth in another. In other words, can you be instantaneously free? - because that is the only way out of this misery. Perception can take place only in the present; but if you say, "I will do it tomorrow the wave of confusion overtakes you, and you are then always involved in confusion.
Now is it possible to come to that state when you yourself perceive the truth instantaneously and therefore put an end to confusion? I say that it is, and that it is the only possible way. I say it can be done and must be done, not based on supposition or belief. To bring about this extraordinary revolution - which is not the revolution to get rid of the capitalists and install another group - to bring about this wonderful transformation, which is the only true revolution, is the problem. What is generally called revolution is merely the modification or the continuance of the right according to the ideas of the left. The left, after all, is the continuation of the right in a modified form. If the right is based on sensual values, the left is but a continuance of the same sensual values, different only in degree or expression. Therefore true revolution can take place only when you, the individual, become aware in your relationship to another. Surely what you are in your relationship to another, to your wife, your child, your boss, your neighbour, is society. Society by itself is non-existent. Society is what you and I, in our relationship, have created; it is the outward projection of all our own inward psychological states. So if you and I do not understand ourselves, merely transforming the outer, which is the projection of the inner, has no significance whatsoever; that is there can be no significant alteration or modification in society so long as I do not understand myself in relationship to you. Being confused in my relationship, I create a society which is the replica, the outward expression of what I am. This is an obvious fact, which we can discuss. We can discuss whether society, the outward expression, has produced me, or whether I have produced society.
Is it not, therefore, an obvious fact that what I am in my relationship to another creates society and that, without radically transforming myself, there can be no transformation of the essential function of society? When we look to a system for the transformation of society, we are merely evading the question, because a system cannot transform man; man always transforms the system, which history shows. Until I, in my relationship to you, understand myself I am the cause of chaos, misery, destruction, fear, brutality. Understanding myself is not a matter of time; I can understand myself at this very moment. If I say, "I shall understand myself to-morrow", I am bringing in chaos and misery, my action is destructive. The moment I say that I "shall" understand, I bring in the time element and so am already caught up in the wave of confusion and destruction. Understanding is now, not tomorrow. To-morrow is for the lazy mind, the sluggish mind, the mind that is not interested. When you are interested in something, you do it instantaneously, there is immediate understanding, immediate transformation. If you do not change now, you will never change, because the change that takes place tomorrow is merely a modification, it is not transformation. Transformation can only take place immediately; the revolution is now, not tomorrow.
When that happens, you are completely without a problem, for then the self is not worried about itself; then you are beyond the wave of destruction."
Gurdjieff, though his work, to me, was filled with irrelevencacies, nevetheless did have some cogent points. He expressed what is to me a fundamental imperative - a prime impulse:
"Freedom, liberation, this must be the aim of man. To become free, to be liberated from slavery: this is what man ought to strive for when he becomes even a little conscious of his position. There is nothing else for him, and nothing else is possible so long as he remains a slave both inwardly and outwardly. But he cannot cease to be a slave outwardly while he remains a slave inwardly. Therefore in order to become free, man must first gain inner freedom.
"The first reason for man's inner slavery is his ignorance, and above all, his ignorance of himself. Without self knowledge, without understanding the working and functions of his machine, man cannot be free, he cannot govern himself and he will always remain a slave, and the plaything of the forces acting upon him.
"This is why in all ancient teachings the first demand at the beginning of the way to liberation was: 'Know thyself.'"
I was introduced to this in the context of a mentor who would work with the materials of David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti. This individuals are not relevant, but the facts they present may trigger a mutation. Krishnamurti deals with the observer being the observed. This is an actual fact. The "observer" is merely a collection of images as opposed to the "observed", which is a collection of images that consciousness has distinguished from the "observer". The extremely unstable movement of psychological security has, via it's conditioning, attached itself to the observer movement, identifying itself as the "me" reading this text.
Krishnamurti's friend David Bohm, in Wholeness and the Implicate Order put forward a reformulation of language based on his dialogues with Krishnamurti, which he called the rheomode. The first verb in the rheomode is:
"to levate": - "the spontaneous and unrestricted act of lifting-into-attention any content whatsoever, including the lifting-into-attention the question of whether this content fits a broader context or not, as well as that of lifting-into-attention the very function of Calling-Attention which is initiated by the verb itself. This implies an unrestricted depth and breadth of content-meaning that is not fixed, that is not bound by static limits."
What happens if we give spontaneous unrestricted attention to everything that arises, including the act of giving that attention? Further, what happens if we reject these images? I propose that the consciousness has many repressed layers, and that this will not happen instantly, in fact, it happens continuously, but at deeper and deeper levels, but that one who is serious might bring upon oneself influxes of an "energy" that interacts with the nervous system, modifying it - increasing coherence, and transforming it. I would not say it is "experienced" in the normal sense, since it comes about as the "experiencer" of the "experienced" dissolves.
With choiceless awareness, there might open up what I would call "perception" - an energy outside of consciousness that acts upon it. Krishnamurti, in The First and Last Freedom put forward the following, which is of relevance.
"When you see the whole process, the cunning, extraordinary inventions, the intelligence of the self, how it covers itself up through identification, through virtue, through experience, through belief, through knowledge; when you see that the mind is moving in a circle, in a cage of its own making, what happens? When you are aware of it, fully cognizant of it, then are you not extraordinarily quiet - not through compulsion, not through any reward, not through any fear? When you recognize that every movement of the mind is merely a form of strengthening the self, when you observe it, see it, when you are completely aware of it in action, when you come to that point - not ideologically, verbally, not through projected experiencing, but when you are actually in that state - then you will see that the mind, being utterly still, has no power of creating. Whatever the mind creates is in a circle, within the field of self. When the mind is non-creating there is creation, which is not a recognizable process."
P.D. Ouspensky, writing in "In Search of the Miraculous", noted the following, relating to a fundamental problem and the dissolution of that problem that may begin to take place as this perception begins to operate, as one undergoes the process of liberating oneself:
"Gurdjieff began one of the following talks with the fact that we forget about the difficulties of our position - that relates to what had independently been discovered:
"You often think in a very naive way," he said. "You already think you can do. To get rid of this conviction is more difficult than anything else for a man. You do not understand all the complexity of your organization and you do not realize that every effort, in addition to the results desired, even if it gives these, gives thousands of unexpected and often undesirable results, and the chief thing that you forget is that you are not beginning from the beginning with a nice clean, new machine. There stand behind you many years of a wrong and stupid life, of indulgence in every kind of weakness, of shutting your eyes to your own errors, of striving to avoid all unpleasant truths, of constant lying to yourselves, of self-justification, of blaming others, and so on, and so on. All this cannot help affecting the machine. The machine is dirty, in places it is rusty, and in some places artificial appliances have been formed, the necessity for which has been created by its own wrong way of working. These artificial appliances will now interfere very much with all your good intentions.
They are called 'buffers.'
'Buffer' is a term which requires special explanation. We know what buffers on railway carriages are. They are the contrivances which lessen the shock when carriages or trucks strike one another. If there were no buffers the shock of one carriage against another would be very unpleasant and dangerous. Buffers soften the results of these shocks and render them unnoticeable and imperceptible.
Exactly the same appliances are to be found within man. They are created, not by nature but by man himself, although involuntarily. The cause of their appearance is the existence in man of many contradictions; contradictions of opinions, feelings, sympathies, words, and actions. If a man throughout the whole of his life were to feel all the contradictions that are within him he could not live and act as calmly as he lives and acts now. He would have constant friction, constant unrest. We fail to see how contradictory and hostile the different I's of our personality are to one another. If a man were to feel all these contradictions he would feel what he really is. He would feel that he is mad. It is not pleasant to anyone to feel that he is mad. Moreover, a thought such as this deprives a man of self-confidence, weakens his energy, deprives him of 'self-respect.' Somehow or other he must master this thought or banish it. He must either destroy contradictions or cease to see and to feel them. A man cannot destroy contradictions. But if 'buffers' are created in him he can cease to feel them and he will not feel the impact from the clash of contradictory views, contradictory emotions, contradictory words.
'Buffers' are created slowly and gradually. Very many 'buffers' are created artificially through 'education.' Others are created under the hypnotic influence of all surrounding life. A man is surrounded by people who live, speak, think, and feel by means of 'buffers.' Imitating them in their opinions, actions, and words, a man involuntarily creates similar 'buffers' in himself. 'Buffers' make a man's life more easy. It is very hard to live without 'buffers.' But they keep man from the possibility of inner development because 'buffers' are made to lessen shocks and it is only shocks that can lead a man out of the state in which he lives, that is, waken him. 'Buffers' lull a man to sleep, give him the agreeable and peaceful sensation that all will be well, that no contradictions exist and that he can sleep in peace. 'Buffers' are appliances by means of -which a man can always be in the right. 'Buffers' help a man not to feel his conscience.
'Conscience' is again a term that needs explanation.
In ordinary life the concept 'conscience' is taken too simply. As if we had a conscience. Actually the concept 'conscience' in the sphere of the emotions is equivalent to the concept 'consciousness' in the sphere of the intellect. And as we have no consciousness we have no conscience.
Consciousness is a state in which a man knows all at once everything that he in general knows and in which he can see how little he does know and how many contradictions there are in what he knows.
Conscience is a state in which a man feels all at once everything that he in general feels, or can feel. And as everyone has within him thousands of contradictory feelings which vary from a deeply hidden realization of his own nothingness and fears of all kinds to the most stupid kind of self-conceit, self-confidence, self-satisfaction, and self-praise, to feel all this together would not only be painful but literally unbearable.
If a man whose entire inner world is composed of contradictions were suddenly to feel all these contradictions simultaneously within himself, if he were to feel all at once that he loves everything he hates and hates everything he loves; that he lies when he tells the truth and that he tells the truth when he lies; and if he could feel the shame and horror of it all, this would be the state which is called 'conscience'. A man cannot live in this state; he must either destroy contradictions or destroy conscience. He cannot destroy conscience, but if he cannot destroy it he can put it to sleep, that is, he can separate by impenetrable barriers one feeling of self from another, never see them together, never feel their incompatibility, the absurdity of one existing alongside another.
But fortunately for man, that is, for his peace and for his sleep, this state of conscience is very rare. From early childhood 'buffers' begin to grow and strengthen in him, taking from him the possibility of seeing his inner contradictions and therefore, for him, there is no danger whatever of a sudden awakening. Awakening is possible only for those who seek it and want it, for those who are ready to struggle with themselves and work on themselves for a very long time and very persistently in order to attain it. For this it is necessary to destroy 'buffers,' that is, to go out to meet all those inner sufferings which are connected with the sensations of contradictions. Moreover the destruction of 'buffers' in itself requires very long work and a man must agree to this work realizing that the result of his work will be every possible discomfort and suffering from the awakening of his conscience.
But conscience is the fire which alone can fuse all the powders in the glass retort which was mentioned before and create the unity which a man lacks in that state in which he begins to study himself.
The concept 'conscience' has nothing in common with the concept 'morality.'
Conscience is a general and a permanent phenomenon. Conscience is the same for all men and conscience is possible only in the absence of 'buffers.' From the point of view of understanding the different categories of man we may say that there exists the conscience of a man in whom there are no contradictions. This conscience is not suffering; on the contrary it is joy of a totally new character which we are unable to understand. But even a momentary awakening of conscience in a man who has thousands of different I's is bound to involve suffering. And if these moments of conscience become longer and if a man does not fear them but on the contrary cooperates with them and tries to keep and prolong them, an element of very subtle joy, a foretaste of the future 'clear consciousness' will gradually enter into these moments.
There is nothing general in the concept of 'morality.' Morality consists of buffers. There is no general morality. What is moral in China is immoral in Europe and what is moral in Europe is immoral in China. What is moral in Petersburg is immoral in the Caucasus. And what is moral in the Caucasus is immoral in Petersburg. What is moral in one class of society is immoral in another and vice versa. Morality is always and everywhere an artificial phenomenon. It consists of various 'taboos,' that is, restrictions, and various demands, sometimes sensible in their basis and sometimes having lost all meaning or never even having had any meaning, and having been created on a false basis, on a soil of superstition and false fears.
"Morality consists of 'buffers.' And since 'buffers' are of various kinds, and as the conditions of life in different countries and in different ages or among different classes of society vary considerably, so the morality created by them is also very dissimilar and contradictory. A morality common to all does not exist.
It is even impossible to say that there exists any general idea of morality, for instance, in Europe. It is said sometimes that the general morality for Europe is 'Christian morality.' But first of all the idea of 'Christian morality' itself admits of very many different interpretations and many different crimes have been justified by 'Christian morality.' And in the second place modern Europe has very little in common with 'Christian morality,' no matter how we understand this morality.
"Many people say that they do not understand the moral side of your teaching," said one of us. "And others say that your teaching has no morality at all."
"Of course not," said G. "People are very fond of talking about morality. But morality is merely self-suggestion. What is necessary is conscience. We do not teach morality. We teach how to find conscience. People are not pleased when we say this. They say that we have no love. Simply because we do not encourage weakness and hypocrisy but, on the contrary, take off all masks. He who desires the truth will not speak of love or of Christianity because he knows how far he is from these. Christian teaching is for Christians. And Christians are those who live, that is, who do everything, according to Christ's precepts. Can they who talk of love and morality live according to Christ's precepts? Of course they cannot; but there will always be talk of this kind, there will always be people to whom words are more precious than anything else.
But this is a true sign! He who speaks like this is an empty man; it is not worth while wasting time on him.
Morality and conscience are quite different things. One conscience can never contradict another conscience. One morality can always very easily contradict and completely deny another. A man with 'buffers' may be very moral. And 'buffers' can be very different, that is, two very moral men may consider each other very immoral. As a rule it is almost inevitably so. The more 'moral' a man is, the more 'immoral' does he think other moral people."
And in combination with this we have a tremendously important insight that Boris Mouravieff brought out in "Gnosis I - The Exoteric Cycle", which like the above work I criticized, has irrelevancies, but also has insights:
"In Western civilization the interior life of the individual, with all its richness, finds itself relegated to a minor role in existence. Man is so caught up in the toils of mechanical life that he has neither time to stop nor the power of attention needed to turn his mental vision upon himself. Man thus passes his days absorbed by external circumstances. The great machine that drags him along turns without stopping, and forbids him to stop under penalty of being crushed. Today like yesterday, and tomorrow like today, he quickly exhausts himself in the frantic race, impelled in a direction which in the end leads nowhere. Life passes away from him almost unseen, swift as a ray of light, and man falls engulfed and still absent from himself.
When we ask someone who lives under this constant pressure of contemporary life to turn his mental vision towards himself, he generally answers that he has not enough time left to undertake such practices. If we insist and he acquiesces, he will in most cases say that he sees nothing: Fog; Obscurity. In less common cases, the observer reports that he perceives something which he cannot define because it changes all the time.
This last observation is correct. Everything is in fact continually changing within us. A minor external shock, agreeable or disagreeable, happy or unhappy, is sufficient to give our inner content I a quite different appearance.
If we follow up this interior observation, this introspection, without prejudice, we will soon constate, not without surprise, that our I, of which we are so consistently proud, is not always the same self: the I changes. As this impression becomes more defined we begin to become more aware that it is not a single man who lives within us but several, each having his own tastes, his own aspirations, and each trying to attain his own ends. Suddenly we discover within us a whole world full of life and colors which until now we had almost entirely ignored. If we still proceed with this experience, we will soon be able to distinguish three currents within that perpetually moving life: that of the vegetative life of the instincts, so to speak; that of the animal life of the feelings; and lastly that of human life in the proper sense of the term, characterized by thought and speech. It is almost as if there were three men within us, all entangled together in an extraordinary way.
So we come to appreciate the value of introspection as a method of practical work which permits us to know ourselves and enter into ourselves. As we gradually progress, we become more clearly aware of the real situation in which we find ourselves. The inner content of man is analogous to a vase full of iron filings in a state of mixture as a result of mechanical action. Every shock received by the vase causes displacement of the particles of iron filings. Thus real life remains hidden from the human being due to the constant changes occurring in his inner life.
Even so, as we shall see later, this senseless and dangerous situation can be modified in a beneficial way. But this requires work; conscientious and sustained effort. Introspection carried out relentlessly results in enhanced internal sensibility. This improved sensibility in its turn intensifies the amplitude and frequency of movement whenever the iron filings are disturbed. As a result, shocks that previously were not noticed will now provoke vivid reactions. These movements, because of their continuous amplification, can create a friction between the particles of iron so intense that we may one day feel the interior fire igniting within us.
This fire must not remain a harmless flare-up. Nor is it enough that the fire smolders dormant under the ashes. A live and ardent fire once lit must be carefully kept alight by the will to refine and cultivate sensitiveness. If it continues in this way, our state can change: the heat of the flame will start a process of fusion within us.
From this point on the inner content will no longer behave like a heap of iron filings: it will form a block. Then further shocks will no longer provoke interior change in man as they did previously. Having reached this point he will have acquired a firmness; he will remain himself in the midst of the tempests to which life may expose him. This is the perspective before those who study esoteric science. But to reach the state which has already been described, we must from the beginning rid ourselves of all illusion about ourselves, no matter how dearly held; an illusion of this kind, if it is tolerated at the start, will grow en route, so that suffering and additional effort will be necessary in order to rid ourselves of it at a later date.
As long as man has not reached the point of fusion, his life will be in effect a factitious existence, as he himself will change from moment to moment. Since these changes will occur as a result of external shocks which he can almost never foresee, it will also be impossible for him to predict in advance the exact way he will change internally. Thus he will live subject to events as they occur, always preoccupied by constantly 'patching up' ('replastering'). He will in fact progress toward the unknown, at the mercy of chance. This state of things, named in the Tradition The Law of Chance, or The Law of Accident, is — for man as he is—the principal law under whose authority he leads his illusory existence.
Esoteric science indicates the possibilities and the means of freeing oneself from this law. It helps us to begin a new and purposeful life; first to become logical with ourselves, and finally, to become our own master. But to begin effectively on this way, one must first clearly see the situation as it is. A parable found in the most ancient sources permits us to get a clear picture of this, and so keep this condition in mind.
It is the parable of the Coach.
This image represents the characteristics of man by a coach. The physical body is represented by the coach itself; the horses represent sensations, feelings and passions; the coachman is the ensemble of the intellectual faculties including reason; the person sitting in the coach is the master. In its normal state, the whole system is in a perfect state of operation: the coachman holds the reins firmly in his hands and drives the horses in the direction indicated by the master. This, however, is not how things happen in the immense majority of cases. First of all, the master is absent. The coach must go and find him, and must then await his pleasure. All is in a bad state: the axles are not greased and they grate; the wheels are badly fixed; the shaft dangles dangerously; the horses, although of noble race, are dirty and ill-fed; the harness is worn and the reins are not strong.
The coachman is asleep: his hands have slipped to his knees and hardly hold the reins, which can fall from them at any moment. The coach nevertheless continues to move forward, but does so in a way which presages no happiness. Abandoning the road, it is rolling down the slope in such a way that the coach is now pushing the horses, which are unable to hold it back. The coachman, fallen into a deep sleep, is swaying in his seat at risk of falling off. Obviously a sad fate awaits such a coach. This image provides a highly appropriate analogy for the condition of most men, and it is worth taking as an object of meditation.
Salvation may however present itself. Another coachman, this one quite awake, may pass by the same route and observe the coach in its sad situation. If he is not much in a hurry, he may perhaps stop to help the coach that is in distress. He will first help the horses hold back the coach from slipping down the slope. Then he will awaken the sleeping driver and together with him will try to bring the coach back to the road. He will lend fodder and money. He might also give advice on the care of the horses, the address of an inn and a coach repairer, and indicate the proper route to follow.
It will be up to the assisted coachman afterward to profit, by his own efforts, from the help and the information received. It will be incumbent on him from this point on to put all things in order and, open eyed, to follow the path he had abandoned.
He will above all fight against sleep, for if he falls asleep again, and if the coach leaves the road again and again finds itself in the same danger, he cannot hope that chance will smile upon him a second time; that another coachman will pass at that moment and at that place and come to his aid once again."
And as one frees oneself, one can pass the torch of awareness to others to inspire that within them.